*2
arise under
might
HENDERSON,
disputes
resolve
Before FAY and
Circuit
judgment.
TUTTLE,
terms
Judges,
Judge.
Senior Circuit
duties and responsibilities are specifically
the special master conducted hearings on
described in
agreement.
The parties
objections.
those
After the special master
were required to attempt
to agree upon a
filed
rulings
some of the disappointed
particular
special master, or absent such class member claimants objected to his find-
agreement,
to have the district court ap-
ings and attempted
to the district
*3
point a master. Because no agreement was
court.
reached, the district court entered an order
Counsel for the PMC filed a response to
appointing
special
master.
the objections to
report
Under
7 of
Section
the consent
judg-
alleging that the defendants
ment, entitled “Class Member Compensa-
parties to the consent judgment,
intended
tion,” pertaining to distribution of
the special master to act
arbitrator,
as an
$2,000,000
fund,
damage
the PMC was re- whose
final,
actions would be
not as a spe-
quired to make an initial determination
cial master pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 53.
that a person seeking a
award
damage
was They asserted that the district court had no
eligible to receive an award under
jurisdiction to entertain the objections to
terms of the judgment. Following the de-
the special
report.1
The Air Force
termination of eligibility,
the PMC was
and the
government
individual
defendants,
then required to apportion among the eligi- however, although not
position
taking
on
ble class
damage
members
awards accord-
the merits of the objectors’/appellants’2
ing
ato
formula contained
claims,
in
responded to the PMC’s brief by
judgment. Once that was accomplished,
supporting the objectors’/appellants’ posi-
the list of eligible class members and their
tion that the district court
jurisdic-
did have
proposed damage awards was to be for-
tion
required
and was
to hear
objections
warded to the special master
his
to the
approv-
pursuant
rulings
to
al. Class members were to
Rule 53.
be notified of
the PMC’s initial determination
The district court
a hearing
held
on Sep-
were allowed to object to
determina-
these
tember
September 13,
1982 and on
tions of the PMC. The PMC in effect made
issued an order dismissing all of the appel-
determinations,
two
one that established
objections
lants’
to the district court for
which class members would be entitled to
jurisdiction.
lack of
This decision that the
any relief
under
consent judgment, and
rulings of the special master are final and
the second which established the amount of
in
unreviewable
the district court
is the
damages each
eligible
class members
subject
appeal.
of this
would receive. Because of this bifurcated
process,
decision-making
the consent judg-
II. DISCUSSION
ment provided that
there would be two
The district court appears to have
opportunities for class
object
members to
based its finding
master
the initial PMC determinations.
provided for in the consent judgment was
The first opportunity involved only those
intended to be the equivalent of an arbitra
persons whom the PMC determined were
tor largely on the testimony
a lawyer
ineligible for any damage award. Notices
the original plaintiffs.
lawyer
was
were sent
persons
these
by the PMC present when the judgment
negotiated
was
giving them
opportunity
an
object
and he testified that
had dis
their exclusion
sharing
in the damage
cussed Rule
but had
decided
explicitly
A
award.
persons
number of
objected and
not to make their special
ap-
one
master
supplemental
1. The
Objectors/appellants
PMC later filed a
potential
brief ad-
2.
are the
mitting
trator,
if
was an arbi-
master
rejected by
members
special
claims
whose
pow-
the district court would
some
master,
appealed.
and who have
Not
findings,
er
scope
to review
but
his
every potential class member whose claim was
review would be limited to the
of whether
issue
by
appealed.
denied
master has
engaged
the
havior.
master
fraud or misbe-
First,
Rule 53. We hold that
PMC directs our attention to
pointed under
clearly
was
errone-
district court’s
paragraphs
two
of the consent
following
reasons.
ous
parties explicitly spelled
which the
out cer-
tain
rights
decisions
First,
going
erred in
the district court
four,
paragraph
master.3 In
Section
outside the four corners of the consent
parties incorporat-
IX the
to find that what
an
“special
labelled a
master” was instead
right
appeal any
ed the
decision
uses
“arbitrator.”
The consent
(pertaining
duties
repeatedly, and
“special
the term
mastér”
court, and
paragraph)
The term
never uses the term “arbitrator.”
that “all other
further
technical, and
fairly
ap
master” is
paragraph
The next
preserved.”
Therefore,
it
pears specifically in Rule
the district
provides
for review
that,
explicit
logical
to assume
absent
*4
decisions, but
court of the
contrary,
parties
indication to the
of
specifically
rights
waives “all further
for a
master”
intend
appeal.”
a
master. This is so
ed
Rule 53
practice
because it is common
particularly
argues
specific
The PMC
that
the
court,
liability
for a
in cases in which
is provisions regarding appeal
paragraphs
in
discrimination,
involving
found
classwide
to
five,
IX,
in all
prove
four and
section
that
appoint
pursuant
to Rule
judgment
involving
other sections of the
53
the
in
indi
fashioning
to aid
both
that
parties
the
master the
intended
See, e.g., Kyr
vidual and classwide relief.
an
appeal.
equally
there be no
We believe
Co.,
F.Supp.
iazi v.
Electric
527
18
Western
plausible explanation
paragraphs
of the two
(D.N.J.1981);
City
v.
of Par
United States
that
the
to waive their
is
drafters wanted
ma,
F.Supp.
(N.D.Ohio 1980);
504
913
Hart
rights”
paragraph
“further
to
in
Brooklyn,
v.
383
Community School Bd. of
five,4
any
but did not want
there to be
Moreover,
(E.D.N.Y.1974).
699
F.Supp.
rights
confusion about
the fact
that no
nothing
there is
in the consent
waived in
four.
being
paragraph
that
the
an
suggests
special master is
arbi
Moreover,
accept
argument
if we
the PMC’s
trator,
vary
or
his duties are to
from
the
except
paragraphs,
for these two
those of a normal Rule 53
master.
parties
intended that
there be no
The
several unpersuasive argu
PMC makes
decisions,
the contrary.
ments to
from the
we
5.Complaints
by
Eglin employee
paragraphs provide:
of ra-
3.The
two
arising be-
cial discrimination or retaliation
wishing
present
4.All
class members
January
and the date of the
tween
1976
complaints
of
violations shall con-
Court,
by
judgment approval
the
not other-
Monitoring
tact
the Plaintiffs’
Committee.
timely
any
filed in
administrative or
wise
inquire
The Committee shall
into such com-
forum,
judicial
as of the date of
plaints
paragraph
in the manner described
Court,
approval by
may
presented
the
be
Committee,
3 above.
If the
in consultation
paragraph
pursuant
procedures
the
counsel,
opinion
with
plaint
is of the
that the com-
above,
hereby
and the Defendants
waive all
presentation
Special
merits
before the
respect
of timeliness with
to such
defenses
complaints.
complaint
presented
Master the
shall be
adjudication
complaints
The
Special
Special
the
The
Master shall
Master.
by
paragraph
in this
shall be made
described
authority
pro-
plenary
to determine the
right
Special
the
Master with the
of review
resolving
cedures to be used in
such com-
court,
by
rights
the district
and all further
plaints by
event
the class members.
In the
hereby
appeal are
waived.
Special
that a
Master determines
occurred,
he
violation of the
has
parties
Although
grants the
4.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 53
appropriate
shall be authorized to order all
rights
appeal from a
certain
decision,
therefor, including
of costs
relief
the award
agree
parties
to waive
are free to
attorney’s
and
The
shall have
fees.
Leasing
rights.
v.
some of those
See Iten
Co.
right
appeal any
decision
such
(8th
Burroughs Corp.,
F.2d
574
Cir.
Northern
United
District
States
Court
1982); Duryea
Third Northwestern National
Florida,
all other
District of
appeal
Bank,
(8th
1979).
UNITED
JUSTICE, Immigration Board
Appeals, Respondent.
No. 82-6164. Appeals,
United Court States
Eleventh Circuit. 3, 1984.
Jan. notes when and whose parties that intentions “created the role of therefore at least as relevant ‘special as master’ ... those [they] spe Mr. Wells judg- construction of the cifically established respon duties and [his] ment. Thus, Both the district court and on this sibilities.” the district court’s order defendants, although appointing technically master adequately case, appellees in this argued described that powers Rule 53 master for in the purposes by consent stating that the master is indeed was a Rule 53 mas- perform “to all duties and functions Thus, Wells, ter. if Mr. authorized even required by the Consent and the PMC intended that Rule not Judgment January 1981.” The dis apply, it is that parties clear not all to the trict was not required order its intent, consent judgment shared the same describe in detail the duties set carefully the district court’s forth therefore judgment. in the clearly erroneous. The district court’s second was to error assign significant weight testimony Finally, district court failed Wells, plain- William D. attorney give weight implicit to the policy sufficient tiffs, stated that dis- who had which ac governs Fed.R.Civ.P. class tions, ultimately cussed Rule 53 and had decided that places special responsibility on against be- using Rule 53 master the district court protect potential settle- they expedite cause wanted to members that receive the they and ensure See, ment. due process Mr. Wells testified to which are entitled. Corp. Motor Antitrust e.g., In Re Nissan (5th Cir. Litigation, 552 F.2d necessary review to assure 1977) (appellate members are not of absentee class in the wake of a district court’s “inundated Rule 23 does supervision”). Although brisk prohibited not mean in a consent providing arrangement type the arbitrator case, it was intended in this urges PMC mean that in cases of doubt about does agreement, of such an meaning clear uses the agreement particularly master,” the courts should term provide construe the allowed Rule 53. kind of above, we hold For the reasons stated was clear- the district court’s erroneous, and RE- ly and we REVERSE further not incon- proceedings MAND for with this opinion. sistent FAY, concurring specially: Judge, Circuit majority I in those join portions opinion dealing provisions with the appointing the order and the of Rule applicability 53. I concur in the result.